2.0 Analysis 2.1 Introduction Since the controller followed the procedures as outlined in MANOPS, with no abnormalities, the analysis will address the instructor's reaction to the instruction issued by the controller. 2.2 Traffic Detection The excellent weather conditions, light traffic at the airport, and aircraft positions as reported on VHF radio were favourable for easy situational awareness and early traffic detection. The Decathlon instructor reported that he did not spot the Cessna traffic until the initial climb following the touch-and-go landing on runway 26. The instructor and student did not anticipate nor did they allow for early visualization of the Cessna traffic. 2.3 Pilot Actions The instructor took control of the Decathlon from the student because he perceived there was a risk of collision with the Cessna 172. Although the control tower instructed the pilot to move slightly right of the centre line, the instructor took evasive action by performing a steep climbing turn to the right. The radar tracings and witness reports indicated that, had the Decathlon continued in a straight-out departure off runway 26 or even moved slightly to the right of the centre line, it would likely have passed above and behind the Cessna on final for runway 16. The instructor reported directing his attention outside of the aircraft because his view of the instrument panel was hindered. His outside forward field of vision would have been restricted because of his rear-seat position and the climb angle of the Decathlon. The instructor did not maintain sufficient airspeed during the manoeuvre. A decrease in airspeed, coupled with the increase in stall speed of the aircraft during the climbing turn, resulted in an inadvertent stall at low altitude. The pilot was able to conduct a partial stall recovery; however, there was insufficient altitude available to effect a full recovery. 3.0 Conclusions 3.1 Findings The instructor and student were certified and qualified in accordance with existing regulations. The aircraft was certified and equipped in accordance with existing regulations. The aircraft weight and C of G were within prescribed limits. The instructor took control of the aircraft during the initial climb, following the touch-and-go landing on runway 26. The instructor did not maintain sufficient airspeed during a climbing turn, and the aircraft stalled at low altitude. A partial stall recovery was carried out before the aircraft struck the ground. The instructor and student did not anticipate nor did they allow for early visualization of the Cessna traffic. The controller followed procedures as outlined in the ATC MANOPS. 3.2 Causes While attempting a low altitude climbing turn, the pilot did not maintain sufficient airspeed, and the aircraft stalled. There was insufficient altitude available to effect a full stall recovery. The Board has no aviation safety recommendations to issue at this time.4.0 Safety Action The Board has no aviation safety recommendations to issue at this time.